The Cost of Women's Basketball is Out of Control & Hurts Our other Athletes

[Knight Time Fan]

football was 8.2 million dollars in the black last year,taking no money fron subsidies. this will improve exponentially from here on out. football is funding all the other sports at this moment. get the facts straight.

No, football is contributing 8.2 million dollars to the athletic department's additional expenses of $26,500,000 that are not allocated to individual sports - the amount reported on the first page of the presentation. In fact, the sports that lost money lost almost $16 million, which the presentation says were paid for by direct institutional subsidy (about $10 million) and student fees (close to $6 million).

Making the athletic department profitable is way down the road. Now that we are in the B1G we see revenue like we never saw before (although even football has a long way to go, we made $8 million while USC made (apparently) $66 million on football this past year (20th ranked)).

 

[oldtimer67]

No, football is contributing 8.2 million dollars to the athletic department's additional expenses of $26,500,000 that are not allocated to individual sports - the amount reported on the first page of the presentation. In fact, the sports that lost money lost almost $16 million, which the presentation says were paid for by direct institutional subsidy (about $10 million) and student fees (close to $6 million).

Making the athletic department profitable is way down the road. Now that we are in the B1G we see revenue like we never saw before (although even football has a long way to go, we made $8 million while USC made (apparently) $66 million on football this past year (20th ranked)).

And just why are you comparing RU to USC? Especially when we have 13 peer schools in conference and several more northeast schools that are much better references.

 

[Knight Time Fan]

And just why are you comparing RU to USC? Especially when we have 13 peer schools in conference and several more northeast schools that are much better references.

Because they were #20 in a list of the top 20. I was pointing out the top 20 is a far climb (yet). Although that article said (or implied) that the figures were profits, I was wrong - those were income.

As for "profit" from football (sourced by a Fox Sports columnist from the Forbes list I quoted) the Big 10 schools were Michigan (#4) (56 Million profit), Ohio State (50 million profit), Penn State (36 million) and Michigan State (32 million). Michigan State was #18 and USC turned out to be #19 in this list ($29 Million), with the east coast USC bringing up the rear at #20 (28 Million).

In the end, I think the most important thing is for football and men's basketball to be profitable enough to eliminate our large subsidy. And to rank us (in general) among other schools, see "sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances" a recent article that ranks RU based on income and subsidy based on NCAA reports. Has been updated to 2015 numbers. RU is in the top 50 in revenue, but has one of the highest subsidies for schools in the top part of the list.

 

[e5fdny]

The fact is ( according to that NJO.com piece) only two Rutgers Sports programs turned a profit,
the rest lost money.
That fact needs to be stressed as well.

Also I can't find out of any college has a WBB program turning a profit
>Data that UConn submitted to the U.S. Department of Education shows that for the 2014-2015 academic year, the school incurred $6.7 million in expenses for its women's basketball team while earning $4 million in revenue.<
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-financial-impact-of-championship-basketball/

That's the best College WBB program there is and that program lost $2.7 million while going undefeated along with winning the National Championship.
Makes you think Rutgers WBB's financial losses are being made into just a Rutgers problem when it's the whole sport of College WBB that needs more support from fans and boosters .

Or just face the fact that while WBB might be #3 it is a distant #3 at RU and a lot of other schools.

Bronze ain't so bad.

 

[MADHAT1]

Or just face the fact that while WBB might be #3 it is a distant #3 at RU and a lot of other schools.

Bronze ain't so bad.

Wouldn't be surprised if it is #3 just about every school that has Football & MBB along with a WBB program, including the NCAA WBB National Champions.
I just don't want the RU WBB program to be run on the cheap in order to cut expenses and I'm sure most of us feel that way, even if disappointed about how much the program cost compared to what it brought in.

 

[Caliknight]

I've had a 180 on Cviv. Did you know she had been on 1 year consecutive contracts? That's a target to recruit against.

She is a legend who is going to be invested in. I think she has one more push. Expect her to sign a 4 year contract to make that happen.

 

[Doctor Worm]

I've had a 180 on Cviv. Did you know she had been on 1 year consecutive contracts? That's a target to recruit against.

She is a legend who is going to be invested in. I think she has one more push. Expect her to sign a 4 year contract to make that happen.

No, no one knew that, because it isn't true. She is half way through a four year contract which runs through mid-2018. What you may be referring to is that the contract has a $0 buyout which must be exercised by April 30, 2016 - i.e., within the next three days. But that is not happening, so the point is moot.

I do agree with the recruiting concerns though. In recruiting terms, having two years left on your contract pretty much means you're a lame duck.

 

[bac2therac]

I've had a 180 on Cviv. Did you know she had been on 1 year consecutive contracts? That's a target to recruit against.

She is a legend who is going to be invested in. I think she has one more push. Expect her to sign a 4 year contract to make that happen.

wrong...after that hideous deal with Uncle Bob expired, she renogiated with Julie who was able to cut that base salary down to 700K or so but with incentives if she could make the Sweet 16..like 500K bonus. In that 4 year deal she was given "one more push" to win

 

[MADHAT1]

wrong...after that hideous deal with Uncle Bob expired, she renogiated with Julie who was able to cut that base salary down to 700K or so but with incentives if she could make the Sweet 16..like 500K bonus. In that 4 year deal she was given "one more push" to win

But it was a very Rutgers friendly contract the last two years and incentives are usually part of most HC's contracts .

CVS agreeing to cutting her base pay was good for Rutgers and her quest to be the RU WBB HC
when she reaches 1000.
That will be great PR for Rutgers and quite an accomplishment for C.Vivian Stringer.

Mulcahy retaining Stringer rather than run the program on the cheap assured that the RU WBB
program wouldn't turn into one that RU fans became ashamed of, even if a little disappointed because excellence wasn't maintained .
Even now the expectations for RU WBB are higher than any of the other RU Sports programs
making it seem Vivian was worth the extension she revived in 2007 because the RU WBB program still sets the standards and ( right now) Vivian Stringer get roasted through the coals because her WBB team isn't reaching them.
Other programs standards are much lower , compared to the one CVS set for the WBB team.

 

[Caliknight]

wrong...after that hideous deal with Uncle Bob expired, she renogiated with Julie who was able to cut that base salary down to 700K or so but with incentives if she could make the Sweet 16..like 500K bonus. In that 4 year deal she was given "one more push" to win

If you guys are right, you are contradicting what Pat Hobbs told me directly.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Here is a 2014 Asbury Park Press article outlining the terms of her four year contract. As the article states, only the first two years are (or should I say, were) guaranteed. A 35% buyout provision for the final two years kicks in on May 1.
http://www.app.com/story/sports/college/rutgers/2014/05/21/stringer-new-contract/9383099/

And here is the official ScarletKnights.com announcement at the time, which does not state the terms.
http://www.scarletknights.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/052114aab.html

 

[rut08]

I can see C Viv getting another 4 years contract because she cant recruit with the current one that she has. As it stands she has 2 years remaining, which i believe is the main reason why we dont have a single top 100 recruit this year (yet). Another 4 years gives her the chance to recruit to the level that we have been accustomed to. Hopefully the news about the practice facility breaking ground this summer is true because Stringer cant recruit on her name alone anymore.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

If you guys are right, you are contradicting what Pat Hobbs told me directly.

It's probably a "series of 1-year deals" that make up the entire contract which allows the school different buyout figures each year. The same thing that was done for Flood.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

I can see C Viv getting another 4 years contract because she cant recruit with the current one that she has. As it stands she has 2 years remaining, which i believe is the main reason why we dont have a single top 100 recruit this year (yet). Another 4 years gives her the chance to recruit to the level that we have been accustomed to. Hopefully the news about the practice facility breaking ground this summer is true because Stringer cant recruit on her name alone anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't recruiting been in a "downward trend" for a couple of years now and, if so, then the contract (4 years, only 2 years old now) hasn't nor isn't the issue, wouldn't you agree?

 

[MADHAT1]

If you guys are right, you are contradicting what Pat Hobbs told me directly.

With the way Stringer's buyout is, Hobbs might be giving Vivian one more year 2016-17 to prove she can take RU to the Tourney and that's the way he looks at her staying the full term of contract.

I understood ( from articles written about that extension) when Hermann and Stringer negotiated the extension it was a four year contract, but with only the first two fully guaranteed .

Every HC is really on a year to year contract based on the teams play , but the buyout makes a HC safe after a poor season in many cases.
The lower the buyout the more chances of being fired after a poor season or two, no matter how much time contract has left before it expires.

 

[rut08]

Recruiting has gone down, part of that is facilities, which is why I said that hopefully the update on the practice facility is true (breaking ground this summer). At the time of Aliyah Jeune's commitment she was one of the top rated recruits in her class. Something happened for her ranking to drop the way it did. Sanders was a top 50 and from services top 30 as was Victoria Harris. So two of the four freshman were in ESPN's top 100 (three before Jeune dropped) . You also have to take into consideration that for the last couple of years we have had a roster filled with upper-classmen, so anyone coming in would have to play behind the upperclassman as their spots were virtually guaranteed. This was the year where there were real minutes available for the top player to actually see the floor. As it stands right now we didn't get any partly because of the contract situation.

 

[MADHAT1]

http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/164/class/2013
Tyler Scaife, PG
http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/164/class/2013
2014 High School Girls' Basketball Recruits - Rutgers - ESPN
http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/164/class/2014
Class of 2015 isn't so shabby either
http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/164/class/2015

 

[Doctor Worm]

rut08 does have a point. When a coach's contract is down to two years, that is generally the "fire or extend" crossroads. Hobbs elected not to fire. Does he extend?

 

[MADHAT1]

rut08 does have a point. When a coach's contract is down to two years, that is generally the "fire or extend" crossroads. Hobbs elected not to fire. Does he extend?

That's a great question and if extended you can bet the buyout wouldn't hurt one bit after the first year.
I think the fire or extend will be handled by the middle of the 2016-17 season according how the team looks and how many of the 31 wins to make 1000 has been reduced and how much closer to that number is expected by seasons end.

 

[Caliknight]

With the way Stringer's buyout is, Hobbs might be giving Vivian one more year 2016-17 to prove she can take RU to the Tourney and that's the way he looks at her staying the full term of contract.

I understood ( from articles written about that extension) when Hermann and Stringer negotiated the extension it was a four year contract, but with only the first two fully guaranteed .

Every HC is really on a year to year contract based on the teams play , but the buyout makes a HC safe after a poor season in many cases.
The lower the buyout the more chances of being fired after a poor season or two, no matter how much time contract has left before it expires.

I am expecting her to get a 4 year deal from my understanding.

 

[rut08]

That's a great question and if extended you can bet the buyout wouldn't hurt one bit after the first year.
I think the fire or extend will be handled by the middle of the 2016-17 season according how the team looks and how many of the 31 wins to make 1000 has been reduced and how much closer to that number is expected by seasons end.

I think it has to be sooner than mid 2016-17 season. She has to go into the live recruiting season for the 2017 class with the assurance that she will be here for a while. Most of the top players are signing during the early signing period and I don't think you can wait for the regular signing period to get the good players.

I am expecting her to get a 4 year deal from my understanding.

Are you hearing a specific time frame on the extension?

 

[Caliknight]

No, I didn't really inquire much. Frankly speaking, it isn't a sport of real interest for me.

The point was, and I agree now, that Cviv has been very successful by most any standard. Elite? That's debatable both ways, but she has taken 3 different teams to the final four and is RU's most winning coach. She is in the HoF. If our finances were what they will be, all of this would be a non issue. It's only because she isn't getting the results she once did and the state of the department put a lot of attention on her, sometimes negative.

She is going to get a chance to go after it again, while reaching a huge milestone, that could only be done on the RU sidelines. Hopefully she can implement a modern offense and recruit and coach to it. She will have the opportunity to do so.

 

[oldman87]

Same OP, same thread, different year.

The purpose of college athletics isn't to make profit, it is to provide the student athletes, as well as the rest of the student body, the complete college experience, just a cost of doing business no different than HS athletics. Obviously, if certain sport can make a profit to help alleviate the cost due to its popularity like football and MBB, it's icing on a cake. Advocating taking money from WBB to invest in other sports is misguided at best, Rutgers WBB should be the model for success for other programs, the more you invest the more successful the program, the goal of every athletic program. Luckily, football and MBB is finally taking the same approach (with the incoming BIG money) and we are already seeing some early returns on recruiting.

As for CVS, I say give her an open ended contract and let her retire on her own timeline, if we're going to keep her, which we are, give her the support and the tools needed to make a successful final run, give her the money for higher level assistants, cuffing her with these 1-2 year contracts does nothing but hurt recruiting and slowly bleed success out of WBB. She is a WBB national treasure and will be widely celebrated bringing all kinds of positive light when she does retire, Rutgers do not want to miss out on that.

 

[e5fdny]

Same OP, same thread, different year.

The purpose of college athletics isn't to make profit, it is to provide the student athletes, as well as the rest of the student body, the complete college experience, just a cost of doing business no different than HS athletics. Obviously, if certain sport can make a profit to help alleviate the cost due to its popularity like football and MBB, it's icing on a cake. Advocating taking money from WBB to invest in other sports is misguided at best, Rutgers WBB should be the model for success for other programs, the more you invest the more successful the program, the goal of every athletic program. Luckily, football and MBB is finally taking the same approach (with the incoming BIG money) and we are already seeing some early returns on recruiting.

Are you really comparing what is going on now at Rutgers with high school sports?

Running a 1A Athletics program in a conference like the B1G is a lot more than just making sure some kids have the full college experience. Agree it's part of doing business, BIG business.

 

[oldman87]

Athletic department budget is small fries when compared with the entire budget of the university, think of it as part of the university's marketing department, no one ever ask the marketing department to be profitable, when I said "cost of doing business" I was referring the business of running a successful universities. The Big 10 conference is a lot more than just athletics, it's just the most visible, there are far more important things that comes with Big 10 like academic cooperation, R&D, resource sharing, combined purchasing...etc. that aren't sexy topics to talk about. Being successful in athletics is not the end game for an University, it's just an investment like building a new student center or a library, the end game is to make the university a more desirable destination for quality students.